Fear Of Crime And Western Criminology Criminology Essay

Introduction

The last decennaries fright of offense is one of the most intensively and since some old ages critically discussed topic in international particularly western criminology. Fear of offense became one of the most of import subjects in criminology. Lee ( 2001, p. 467 ) points out: “ Since the late 1960s the ‘fear of offense ‘ has increasingly become a deeply piquant field of survey for criminologists and other societal research workers. More resently debates about what ‘fear of offense ‘ might be and how it might be measured have proliferated and intensified. This is peculiarly true of the field since the early 1980s ” . Hale ( p. 480 ) hints back the involvement in fright of offense to the political state of affairs in the USA, but besides the “ increasing edification of statistical enquiry ; criminological concern with new signifiers of offense statistics ; the outgrowth of victim studies ; lifting rates of recorded offense in the USA and new efforts to regulate this ; racialized concers about ‘black rioting ‘ ; a peculiar signifier of populist political discourse ; and a historical minute where the conditions of possibility were such that these seemingsly diffuse discourses cold converge – the debating and passing of The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 1968 ” ( see besides Beckett and Sasson 2004 ) .

The media get more and more involvement on the issue of fright, on the background of a stronger competition between the increasing figure of medias. They understood that offense is a subject covering with fright and that intelligence about increasing fright of offense rates, presented by polls and research sells. Crime and fright of offense was an of import subject for the media to be reported. Nevertheless the media are non foremost interested in giving an overview of offense and offense development but reported “ what sells ” , that is dramatic and terrible offenses, holding the consequence that people could hold the feeling, this is “ offense ” . This manner of describing offenses in the media besides had influence on feelings of unsafety ( Kerner and Feltes 1980 ; Roberts and Doob 1990 ; Beckett and Sasson 2004 ) . In Germany and other western European states a argument about fright of offense began particularly in the beginning of the 1980s, besides here on the background of offense and/or victimization studies uncovering a high rate of people experiencing more or less “ fright of offense ” ( see critically Boers 1991 ; Reuband 1995 ) . The consequences of the legion surveies frequently showed different consequences with few international more or less stable results, like that adult females experience more frights than work forces. If aged people are more fearful than younger 1s or people with experiences of victimization in comparing with those without victimization is for illustration discussed controversial ( see the sum-up of findings by Hale 1996 ; Zarafonitou 2008 ) .

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!


order now

The argument about an increasing “ fright of offense ” rate as measured in offense and victimization studies increased particularly on the background of increasing “ frights ” in society on the background of deep alterations in society, like the more and more gap of the boundary lines, particularly to the states of the former Sovjet Union, in Germany the reunion of both parts of Germany, on this background an increasing migration of people, particularly from the poorer states to the western, more flush societies. The increasing Numberss of “ aliens ” , the public treatment of more and more “ jobs ” in society, like unemployment, environmental jobs, like air pollution, increasing monetary values, more and more costs for the wellness system and an “ increasing ” offense rate resulted in a feeling in society that there are more and more hazards, besides risks that the authorities can non truly work out. The society was seen as a “ risk-society ” ( see Beck 1986 ) . On this background criminologists and societal scientists measured more and more “ fright of offense ” , methodologists understood the same clip more and more that this “ frights ” are non merely fright of offense but a mixture of different feelings of unsecurity, cholers, about political relations, concern and similar emotions ( Skogan 1993 ; Sessar 2008 ) . Ill-defined unsafeties can be reduced if we find the ground for it. Risks and frights became political buildings, used for set uping duties ( Sessar and Stangl 2007, S. 14 ) . Hollway and Jefferson ( 1997, p. 263 ) point out that “ fright of offense aˆ¦ is an unconscious supplanting of other frights which are far more intractable ” . Methodologists showed more and more that the measuring of fright of offense is non really valid, the standard inquiry used in a batch of studies internationally, inquiring for feelings of fright walking entirely in the eventide in the vicinity was more and more critisized ( Kreuter 2002 ) . The same clip methodologists showed the influence on informations roll uping, the questionnaires and the diction of inquiries on the consequences of studies ( see Kury and Wuerger 1993 ; Kury 1994 ) . Sessar ( 2007, S. 149 ; 2006 ) who organized together with co-workers an international comparative empirical undertaking about anxiousness in large European metropoliss from east and west ( Amsterdam, Budapest, Hamburg, Krakov and Wienna ) discusses the background of frights in large metropoliss. To him the standard inquiry asks for unsafety and merely criminology has interpreted the consequences as fright of “ offense ” .

In western states, besides Germany, the treatment about an “ increasing ” offense rate and particularly about “ fright of offense ” resulted in steps particularly against fright like a motion in developing community offense bar undertakings from the beginning of the 1990s until today ( see Obergfell-Fuchs and Kury 1995 ; Obergfell-Fuchs 2001 ; Dolling et Al. 2003 ; Bannenberg et Al. 2005 ) . Meanwile 1000s of German metropoliss have organized more and more sophisticated offense bar undertakings and steps to cut down offense, particularly “ fright of offense ” ( see Bundeskriminalamt 2001 ) .

More and more methodologist pointed out critically the manner to mensurate fright of offense and showed that the consequences of most studies do n’t non merely show fright of offense but a mixture of different frights ( Ferraro and LaGrange 1987 ; Kreuzer 2002 ; Kury and Ferdinand 1998 ; Kury 2008 ; Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs 2008 ) . In England for illustration Farrall and his research group showed in first-class experiments that fright of offense measured with usual instruments like standardised questionnaires utilizing the standard inquiry is much lower than the consequences show ( see Farrall et Al. 1997 ; 2000 ) . Kury and his group could demo in comparative experimental research the same consequences for Germany ( see Kury et Al. 2004a ; 2004b ; 2004c ; 2005 ; Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs 2008 ) . In extra experimental studies the writers could besides demo that the frequence of feelings of fright of offense is comparatively seldom ( see Farrall and Gadd 2004 ; Feistritzer and Stangl 2006 ) . More and more scientists asked for a more sophisticated and differentiated measuring and treatment of fright of offense ( see Hirtenlehner 2008a ; 2008b ; Kaal et Al. 2008 ; Vanderveen 2006 ; 2008 ; Gray et Al. 2008 ) .

Harmonizing to some surveies fear of offense and the public treatment of it besides had beside other changements in society the consequence of an increasing punitiveness, of a society of more control ( Garland 2001 ; Serrano-Maillo and Kury 2008 ) . Fearful people are inquiring more for crisp reactions for wrongdoers. On this background politicians non merely in western states sharpened the Torahs frequently with the consequence of an increasing imprisonment rate and as effect higher costs for penalizing wrongdoers. A batch of comparative research interim shows that the consequence of crisp reactions on offense rates is really questionable ( see Kury and Ferdinand 2008 ; Kury et Al. 2009 ) . As a cardinal job besides in mensurating punitiveness really frequently is overseen that punitiveness is like fright of offense a really complex and under-theorized subject. The measuring of these complex concepts is in the beginning. Brown ( 2006, p. 288 ) points out for the USA that “ generalizing and casting of incrimination for the rise of punitory policies on the abstract ‘American populace ‘ has persisted despite grounds on the complexness and comparative moderateness of public positions on offense control ” ( see besides Cullen et al 2000 ; 2002 ) . Mathews ( 2005 ) critisizes right a losing clear conceptualisation of punitiveness and on this background non clear consequences about punitory attitudes in society. Roberts and his co-workers could demo in different surveies for illustration a strong influence of the information about condemnable instances on the attitudes about the penalty of the wrongdoers ( see Doob and Roberts 1983 ; Roberts 1992 ; Roberts and Hough 2002 ) .

In Germany we had the last old ages a controversial treatment about the inquiry if Punitivity truly increased in the state or non. One job in the treatment besides here is a non-exact definition what is understood with “ punitiveness ” . There is losing a clear definition of what punitiveness is ( see above ) . Kury et Al. ( 2004 ) differentiated in at least three different subdivisions of punitiveness: – punitiveness on the degree of attitudes to penalty of the populace, – as reactions on the political degree in signifier of new crisp Torahs and – as reactions on the degree of the tribunals in signifier of crisp penalties. Punitivity can besides seen for illustration on the degree of reactions of the constabulary to people on the streets like aliens, homeless or wrongdoers. Some writers argue that we have an increasing punitiveness besides here but the job is non yet seen by the criminologists ( see Sack 2006 ) . Other experts could demo that the punitiveness in Germany is non truly increasing, at least non if proofing the attitudes to penalty of the populace or the sentencing of the tribunals ( Reuband 2006 ) . On the degree of political determinations in signifier of sharper Torahs there can be seen besides here an increasing Punitivity ( see Kury et Al. 2004 ; Kury and Ferdinand 2008 ; Kury 2008 ) . These consequences were besides found in international surveies ( see for illustration the articles in Kury 2008, particularly Yoshida 2008 ; Serrano-Maillo and Kury 2008 ; Kury 2009 )

Methodological surveies showed the last old ages more or less simila consequences to the fright of offense research: the consequences collected with the standardised questionnaires are non really valid. The complexness of the construct Punitivity can non be measured by simple inquiries like the attitude to decease punishment for illustration, particularly in states like Germany which abolished it decades ago ( 1949 ) . Frost speaks about a “ mismeasure of penalty ” , Kury ( 1995 ) asked how punitory the public truly are and discusses the influence of different inquiries in standardised instruments on the consequences about Punitivity. In a comparable research undertaking as that about methodological influences by research methodological analysis on the consequences ( see above ) Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs ( 2008 ) could demo similar consequences. If inquiring people more accurate and differentiated about their attitudes to punishment alternatively of utilizing standardised questionnaires with the common inquiries about punitiveness the consequences show that the populace is much less punitory that the common consequences of studies show.

International Surveys including states of the former Sovjet Union or far eastern states like China or Japan show on a regular basis that the populace in these states is more punitory than in Western European states, but may be non in comparing to the USA. This clearly shows that the attitudes to punishment in the populace are strongly influenced by the approving practice in these states ( see Kury 2004 ; Kury and Karimov 2006 ) . Kury and Kapanadze ( 2004 ) for illustration could demo in an empirical survey in Georgia that the punitory attitudes are more tough in this state. The same could be shown by Kury et Al. ( 2006 ) for Azerbaijan. They asked pupils in Baku and found out that the Punitivity is really high. Baku had the highest per centum of respondents voting for an imprisonment of a burglar who has stolen a color Television in comparing with other ( western ) states ( Kury et al. 2006, p. 460 ) . 64 % voted for decease punishment for serious wrongdoers ( p. 461 ) . The difference between male and female was little.

If this practice of crisp penalties alterations on a regular basis besides the attitudes to punishment alteration over clip. In West Germany the decease punishment was abolished 1949. At that clip about three quarters of the population voted for decease punishment in instances of terrible offenses. Meanwhile merely round about one tierce are voting for this terrible penalty. People “ learned ” that decease punishment is non necessary to command offense and particularly they were informed by the media about options to classical penalty. The same happened in the former German Democratic Republic after the reunion of both parts of Germany after 1989. At the get downing the east Germans ware much more punitiv than the West Germans. They were non informed about options to punishment. Meanwhile the difference is much smaller ( see Lugwig and Kraupl 2005 ; Reuband 2008 ) .

Refering fright of offense consequences of different studies show that feelings of insecurity in eastern states if there is no political alteration and strong control is comparatively low. Kury et Al. ( 2006, p. 427 ) could demo that the fright of offense is comparatively low in Baku/Azerbaijan, a large metropolis but strongly controlled, in comparing with western metropoliss. Ludwig and Kraupl ( 2005, p. 49 ) could demo that in eastern Germany, the former German Democratic Republic, the rate of fright of offense decreased from 1991/92 ( 69,8 % really insecure and insecure walking entirely in the eventide in the vicinity ) to 1995/96 ( 50 % ) and to 2001/02 ( 42 % ) significantly. Peoples have more experience with the new life conditions and are more familiar with the “ new ” life.

Mesko et Al. ( 2008 ) have presented interesting and new consequences from a study about “ social-demographic and social-psychological positions of fright of offense in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia ” . The undermentioned study will convey more consequences about fright of offense in Ljubljana and Belgrade. These are first of import stairss of empirical research in of import subjects of criminology and societal psychological science. Fear of offense influences the life conditions of people, has influence on punitory attitudes and so on offense political relations. So it is really of import to analyze the development of fright of offense and the correlatives of these feelings.

2. Datas aggregation

In this survey we used an interviewing method conducted in the families of the interviewees. The population consisted of the grownup ( 18 old ages old and more ) dwellers of urban countries of Ljubljana and Belgrade. The exercised sampling process was a multi-stage random chance method. The choice procedure was carried out through the undermentioned phases:

Phase 1: A Primary trying units. During the first phase we defined the metropolis countries ( i.e. the wider vicinities ) in which the research would be conducted. Since in this survey the population consisted of urban dwellers, suburban and rural colonies, every bit good as industrial and concern countries, were hence excluded at this phase of planing the sample. For illustration, Belgrade comprises 17 municipalities, out of which 6 are wholly urban, 4 are partially urban and 7 have the position of suburban municipalities. We picked urban municipalities and the urban parts of the assorted municipalities, excepting the suburban 1s. When we obtained the map of primary trying units, we defined the proportionate engagement of each such section in the whole sample.

Phase 2: A Sampling Points. The 2nd measure in planing the sample consisted of exactly specifying the trying points i.e. the streets or parts of the streets inside the primary trying units, defined in the first measure, in which the polls would be conducted. Each trying point was defined as a way with a specific get downing point and given the way of the poll takers motion. In that manner, we obtained a list of 40 exactly defined waies for each metropolis ( from point A towards point B ) where the poll takers would travel and in such designed countries find their interviewees. Inside each trying point, 10 interviews were conducted.

Phase 3: A Households. The following measure involved stipulating the process for happening of convenient families in which the canvass or interview would be conducted. The choice of a family was carried out utilizing the random-route technique. The temperament of families was defined harmonizing to the metropolis size and the type of colony. In Belgrade, the selected family was each 10th level in the countries with blocks of flats ( numbering from the top floor in each entryway ) , that is, each 7th house in the countries with private single lodging. In Ljubljana, it was proposed that polls should be conducted in each 5th level or each 3rd house, severally. The poll takers were instructed to walk on the left manus side of the street.

Phase 4: A Respondents. The concluding measure in sample design consisted of specifying the process for the pick of the interviewees inside the antecedently right chosen family. Our choice of one respondent per family was on aˆznext birthday ” selection-key. The process prescribed that the poll taker should strike hard at the door of the right chosen family, say his/her name and ask for cooperation in the study, inquire how many members of that family are grownups ( 18 old ages or older ) , and so pick one whose birthday falls following ( chronologically ) . The alteration of such designated respondents was allowed merely if after three efforts ( one initial visit and two call-backs ) the poll taker could non carry on the interview. In instance that it was impossible to happen the right chosen interviewee or if he refused to take part in the canvass, the poll takers continued the questioning harmonizing to the program of motion in that trying point.

The polling was conducted during the period ( 1 to 15 April 2009? ) , A by the pupils of the concluding old ages of the Faculty of Security Studies in Belgrade and Fakulteta za varnostne vede in Ljubljana, after the field work preparation and after having precise instructions about the process for polling and maintaining the research certification. The questioning procedure was supervised by experient research workers of the universities, the research helpers at the module, who besides controlled the input and creative activity of the databases.A

Apart from the lasting supervising of the questioning procedure by the staff of the universities, and in conformity with international research criterions, a cheque of at least 15 % of the effectual interviews was performed in each metropolis utilizing some of the back/checks options ( direct supervising during the interview, visit of the supervisor to the interviewed families, cheque by phone calls to the interviewed families ) .

3. Sample

A sum of 800 female and male respondents from Ljubljana, Slovenia ( 400 ) and Belgrade, Serbia ( 400 ) were included in the sample. Table 1 shows the features of the sample. The sample is comparatively large and can be seen as representative for both metropoliss.

Table 1: Features of the Sample in Slovenia ( Ljubljana ) and Serbia ( Belgrade )

N = 800

Slovenija

Srbija

Both

Nitrogen

%

Nitrogen

%

Nitrogen

%

Age

( n = 795 )

18-20

29

7,3

18

4,5

47

5,9

21-30

85

21,5

76

19,0

161

20,3

31-40

64

16,2

57

14,2

121

15,2

41-50

41

10,4

49

12,2

90

11,3

51-60

53

13,4

86

21,5

139

17,5

61-70

56

14,2

63

15,8

119

15,0

Over 70

67

17,0

51

12,8

118

14,8

Gender

( n = 787 )

Female

238

61,5

235

41,2

473

60,1

Male

149

38,5

165

58,8

314

39,9

Marital position

( n = 795 )

Single

103

26,1

107

26,8

210

26,4

Married

152

38,5

185

46,2

337

42,4

Cohabitating

69

17,5

19

4,8

88

11,1

Divorced

25

6,3

39

9,8

64

8,1

Widowed

46

11,6

50

12,5

96

12,1

Education

( n = 796 )

Unfinished Primary School

2

0,5

3

0,8

5

0,6

Primary School

27

6,8

17

4,2

44

5,5

High School ( 3 old ages )

46

11,6

59

14,8

105

13,2

High School ( 4 old ages )

118

29,8

111

27,8

229

28,8

Secondary school

46

11,6

27

6,8

73

9,2

College

42

10,6

69

17,2

111

13,9

Barium

93

23,5

98

24,5

191

24,0

Post-graduate survey

22

5,6

16

4,0

38

4,8

Employment position

( n = 800 )

Employed ( for an indefinite period )

131

32,8

120

30,0

251

31,4

Employed ( for a definite period )

25

6,2

17

4,2

42

5,2

Schoolboy/girl, Student

63

15,8

54

13,5

117

14,6

Unemployed

14

3,5

39

9,8

53

6,6

Employed ( waiting )

1

0,2

4

1,0

5

0,6

Housekeeping

2

0,5

2

0,5

4

0,5

Retired

153

38,2

147

36,8

300

37,5

Other

11

2,8

17

4,2

28

3,5

Frequency of sing spiritual ceremonials

( n = 800 )

Once or more per twenty-four hours

3

0,8

1

0,2

4

0,5

Once or more per hebdomad

32

8,0

15

3,8

47

5,9

Once per month

22

5,5

50

12,5

72

9,0

Several times per twelvemonth

74

18,5

144

36,0

218

27,2

Once per twelvemonth or seldom

61

15,2

77

19,2

138

17,2

Never

208

52,0

113

28,2

321

40,1

Religious believes

( n = 797 )

Atheist

174

43,8

67

16,8

241

30,2

Broad religionism

48

12,1

59

14,8

107

13,4

Moderate religionism

161

40,6

260

65,0

421

52,8

Conservative religionism

9

2,3

10

2,5

19

2,4

Cardinal religionism

5

1,3

4

1,0

9

1,1

Economic position

( n = 796 )

I have adequate money for a nice life.

142

35,9

52

13,0

194

24,4

I have adequate money for life, but I ca n’t afford a batch.

194

49,0

211

52,8

405

50,9

I have adequate money merely to last.

45

11,4

111

27,8

156

19,6

I have adequate money merely for necessary things. Many times I do n’t cognize how to last.

15

3,8

26

6,5

41

5,2

Monthly ingestion ( housekeeping )

( n = 784 )

0 – 100 EUR

2

0,5

5

1,2

7

0,9

101 – 200 EUR

17

4,4

19

4,8

36

4,6

201 – 300 EUR

19

4,9

73

18,2

92

11,7

301 – 400 EUR

49

12,7

74

18,5

123

15,7

401 – 500 EUR

54

14,0

71

17,8

125

15,9

501 – 600 EUR

67

17,4

53

13,2

120

15,3

601 – 700 EUR

47

12,2

35

8,8

82

10,5

701 – 800 EUR

40

10,4

26

6,5

66

8,4

800 + EUR

91

23,6

42

10,5

133

17,0

How frequently do you…

( Likert graduated table: 1- ne’er, 2 – really seldom, 3 – several times per month, 4 – at least one time per hebdomad, 5 – about every twenty-four hours, 6 – every twenty-four hours )

m

s.d.

m

s.d.

m

s.d.

… ticker national Television?

4,18

1,654

4,30

1,656

4,24

1,655

… ticker local Television?

3,91

1,919

4,28

1,686

4,09

1,815

… ticker foreign Television?

3,97

1,661

3,80

1,886

3,89

1,778

… listen to the wireless?

4,81

1,534

3,39

1,992

4,10

1,914

… read the newspaper?

4,63

1,553

4,63

1,707

4,63

1,631

… ticker video/DVD?

2,61

1,511

2,70

1,653

2,66

1,583

… read intelligence on the cyberspace?

3,26

2,044

2,52

1,898

2,89

2,006

The age is comparatively good distributed about the different groups. Refering the sex of respondents more adult females participated in the study a consequence really frequently found. Womans are more willing to take part in such studies ( ovo izbaciti, uzorak je sluA?ajan, zato je “ ispala ” ovakva polna struktura – deA?ava Se, a ne zbog toga A?to su A?ene gall spremnije na uA?eA?A‡e ) . Refering the matrimonial position and the instruction we have a good distribution. The figure of unemployed is in both metropoliss comparatively low. 37,5 % are retired, a comparatively high figure if we see the age distribution. Refering the spiritual activities 40 % are non active, a high per centum, but in the former Sovjet provinces religious was non or merely small supported so it is non surprising that so many are non active in spiritual subjects. 30 % are atheists, in Slovenia 44 % and in Serbia 17 % . One 4th ( 24 % ) say they have adequate money for a nice live, but in Slovenia 36 % and in Serbia merely 13 % . So the Serbes are much poorer than the Slovenes. 11 % of the interviewed Slovenes but non less than 28 % of the Serbes point out they merely have money to last. That shows clearly that populating conditions in Servias ( Belgrade ) are much worse than in Slovenia ( Ljubljana ) . ( Ne, podaci Ne govore o faktiA?kom materijalnom stanju – to se one Nes utvrA‘uje anketnim ispitivanjem, veA‡ samo o percepciji ispitanika. Dakle, ispitanici iz Srbije percipiraju svoj materijalni position kao daleko nepovoljniji nego ispitanici iz Slovenije. Takva nepovoljna percepcija, naravno, ima svoj izvor u objektivno nepovoljnijim ekonomskim uslovima koji realno postoje u ove dve drA?ave, ali myocardial infarction nemamo pravo district attorney zakljuA?ujemo “ So the Serbes are much poorer than the Slovenes ” ) . Harmonizing to this consequence the monthly ingestion for housekeeping are in the medium lowere than in Slovenia. While in Serbia 43 % of the interviewed individuals spend per month at maximal 400 Euros, in Slovenia this are merely 22 % , that is round about half. On the other side in Slovenia 64 % spend every month 500 Euros or more in Serbia this are merely 39 % . While in Serbia more interviewed respondents look national and local Television, the Slovenes hear more wireless and utilize the cyberspace, what has evidently to make with the fiscal conditions in both states. In Slovenia both sexes and all age groups use more the wireless than in Serbia, the same clip the Slovenes usage more the cyberspace in all age and both sex groups.

Sing gender, age and frequence of media we joined those variables into five new variables:

sing gender, age and frequence of watching Television ( immature adult females who watch small Television, immature adult females who watch Television a batch, older adult females who watch small Television, older adult females who watch Television a batch, immature work forces who watch small Television, immature work forces who watch Television a batch, older work forces who watch small Television, older work forces who watch Television a batch ) ;

sing gender, age and frequence of listening to the wireless ( immature adult females who do n’t listen to the wireless a batch, immature adult females who listen to the wireless a batch, older adult females who do n’t listen to the wireless a batch, older adult females who listen to the wireless a batch, immature work forces who do n’t listen to the wireless a batch, immature work forces who listen to the wireless a batch, older work forces who do n’t listen to the wireless a batch, older work forces who listen to the wireless a batch ) ;

sing gender, age and frequence of reading newspaper ( immature adult females who do n’t read newspaper a batch, immature adult females who read newspaper a batch, older adult females who do n’t read newspaper a batch, older adult females who read newspaper a batch, immature work forces who do n’t read newspaper a batch, immature work forces who read newspaper a batch, older work forces who do n’t read newspaper a batch, older work forces who read newspaper a batch ) ;

sing gender, age and frequence of watching video/DVD ( immature adult females who do n’t watch video/DVD a batch, immature adult females who watch video/DVD a batch, older adult females who do n’t watch video/DVD a batch, older adult females who watch video/DVD a batch, immature work forces who do n’t watch video/DVD a batch, immature work forces who watch video/DVD a batch, older work forces who do n’t watch video/DVD a batch, older work forces who watch video/DVD a batch ) ;

sing gender, age and frequence of reading intelligence on the cyberspace ( immature adult females who do n’t read intelligence on the cyberspace a batch, immature adult females who read intelligence on the cyberspace a batch, older adult females who do n’t read intelligence on the cyberspace a batch, older adult females who read intelligence on the cyberspace a batch, immature work forces who do n’t read intelligence on the cyberspace a batch, immature work forces who read intelligence on the cyberspace a batch, older work forces who do n’t read intelligence on the cyberspace a batch, older work forces who read intelligence on the cyberspace a batch ) .

Frequencies of single variables are presented in table 2.

Table 2: Frequencies sing age, gender and frequence of media

A

Ljubljana

Beograd

Both

Watching Television

A

degree Fahrenheit

%

degree Fahrenheit

%

degree Fahrenheit

%

immature adult females – small Television

39

10,2

26

6,5

65

8,3

immature adult females – tonss of Television

70

18,3

80

20,0

150

19,2

older adult females – small Television

21

5,5

30

7,5

51

6,5

older adult females – tonss of Television

105

27,5

99

24,8

204

26,1

immature work forces – small Television

26

6,8

16

4,0

42

5,4

immature work forces – tonss of Television

55

14,4

57

14,3

112

14,3

older work forces – small Television

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

older work forces – tonss of Television

66

17,3

92

23,0

158

20,2

Listening to the wireless

immature adult females – small wireless

23

6,0

45

11,3

68

8,7

immature adult females – tonss of wireless

85

22,3

61

15,3

146

18,7

older adult females – small wireless

18

4,7

87

21,8

105

13,4

older adult females – tonss of wireless

108

28,3

42

10,5

150

19,2

immature work forces – small wireless

20

5,2

35

8,8

55

7,0

immature work forces – tonss of wireless

61

16,0

38

9,5

99

12,7

older work forces – small wireless

7

1,8

49

12,3

56

7,2

older work forces – tonss of wireless

59

15,5

43

10,8

102

13,1

Reading newspaper

immature adult females – small newspaper

22

5,8

23

5,8

45

5,8

immature adult females – tonss of newspaper

86

22,6

83

20,8

169

21,6

older adult females – small newspaper

23

6,0

28

7,0

51

6,5

older adult females – tonss of newspaper

103

27,0

101

25,3

204

26,1

immature work forces – small newspaper

27

7,1

17

4,3

44

5,6

immature work forces – tonss of newspaper

54

14,2

56

14,0

110

14,1

older work forces – small newspaper

10

2,6

22

5,5

32

4,1

older work forces – tonss of newspaper

56

14,7

70

17,5

126

16,1

Watching video/DVD

immature adult females – small video/DVD

74

19,5

52

13,0

126

16,2

immature adult females – tonss of video/DVD

34

8,9

54

13,5

88

11,3

older adult females – small video/DVD

116

30,5

110

27,5

226

29,0

older adult females – tonss of video/DVD

10

2,6

19

4,8

29

3,7

immature work forces – small video/DVD

37

9,7

31

7,8

68

8,7

immature work forces – tonss of video/DVD

44

11,6

42

10,5

86

11,0

older work forces – small video/DVD

55

14,5

81

20,3

136

17,4

older work forces – tonss of video/DVD

10

2,6

11

2,8

21

2,7

Reading intelligence on the cyberspace

immature adult females – small cyberspace

32

8,4

61

15,3

93

11,9

immature adult females – tonss of cyberspace

77

20,2

45

11,3

122

15,6

older adult females – small cyberspace

102

26,7

111

27,8

213

27,2

older adult females – tonss of cyberspace

24

6,3

18

4,5

42

5,4

immature work forces – small cyberspace

22

5,8

31

7,8

53

6,8

immature work forces – tonss of cyberspace

59

15,4

42

10,5

101

12,9

older work forces – small cyberspace

43

11,3

74

18,5

117

15,0

older work forces – tonss of cyberspace

23

6,0

18

4,5

41

5,2

4. Consequences

4. 1. Correlations

From figure 1 we can see correlativities ( for both metropoliss together ) between new variables and variable “ Fear of Crime ” .

The most correlative variables with fright of offense are: V9 – Influence of exploitation ( r = 0,497 ) , V6 – Possible weight of exploitation ( r = 0,493 ) , V12 – Avoidance schemes ( r = 434 ) , V4 – malaise because of offense ( r = 0,371 ) , V5 – chance of exploitation in following 3 months ( r = 0,229 ) and V2 – marks of incivility ( r = 0,211 ) . All correlativities are positive and important at the 0,01 degree. Self-defence ability is logically negatively correlated with fright of offense ( r = -0,333 ) . More people think of themselves that they are capable of trailing off a possible attacker, less they are afraid. Correlation is important at the 0,01 degree. These correlativities are all important and more or less the same in all three samples, that is, factors which influence feelings of insecurity are more or less the same in both metropoliss. There are merely two correlativities merely in one of the two metropoliss: Fear of offense is positively correlatet with V3 – trust in condemnable justness establishments ( R = 0,148 ) in Ljubljana and besides positively correlated with V14 – media frequence ( r = 0,089 ) in Belgrade. That means that in Ljubljane respondents who trust in condemnable justness establishments are a small spot more fearful and in Belgrade people who use more media are more fearful. The correlativities are in both instances comparatively little ( see besides Table 3 ) .

Table 3: Correlations between the 13 variables and “ Fear of Crime ” – Ljubljana, Belgrade and both metropoliss

Variables Corelations

Lubljana Belgrade Both

V1- societal webs in vicinity.022.048.011

V2- marks of incivility.189** .179** .211**

V3- trust in condemnable justness establishments.148** kako? .002.045

V4- malaise because of offense.410** .311** .371**

V5- chance of victimis. In following 3 months.201** .242** .229**

V6- possible weight of exploitation.482** .504** .493**

V7- self-defense ability -.335** -.325** -.333**

V8- supportive webs -.062 -.048 -.051

V9- influence of exploitation.515** .475** .497**

V10-victim in the past 12 months -.018 -.018 -.040

V11-vicarious exploitation.042.045.043

V12-avoidance schemes.439** .417** .434**

V13-media frequence.064.080.089*

PRVOA : A Ta je strah Doctor of Optometry kriminalaA u ovom istraA?ivanju?

DRUGOA : Treba objasniti svaku varijablu, one objasniti INSTRUMENT. Ovako se iz skraA‡enih naziva varijabli aspolutno ne mogu pokapirati sadrA?aji na koje Se odnose ( zamisli nekoga KO nema pojma O naA?em istraA?ivanju, A?ta moA?e district attorney pomisli O sadrA?aju varijable V12-avoidance schemes, npr )

V3 – zar nije nelogiA?no district attorney Se viA?e plaA?e ako viA?e veruju u pravosudje? MoA?da district attorney ovo ne prikaA?eA? .

Malo su grubi zakljuA?ci za ovako niske korelacije… the consequences should be studied and interpreted with a certain grade of cautiousness.

MOA?DAA : Ljudi u Ljubljani koji Se viA?e plaA?e kriminala – zbog toga viA?e veruje u pravosuA‘e.

MOA?DAA : Ljudi koji se viA?e plaA?e u Beogradu viA?e prattle medije.

Nemamo elementarni podatakA : koliki procenat ljudi u LJ I BG je uplaA?eno. Valjda je glavno pitanje trebalo district attorney budeA :

How prevalent is the fright of offense in the LJ and BG population, and

how much do people worry about different types of offenses?

Ako Bi ovo iA?lo u neki ozbiljniji A?asopis, takoA‘e nemamo dve znaA?ajne stavke:

degree of non-response ( ne verujem district attorney je iko Doctor of Optometry kolega, a ni ja, dostavio podatak o ovome )

point non-response ( Donaˆst know/ Dont want to reply ) O ove dve stavke Bi trebalo voditi raA?una sledeA‡i put ( to se zahteva kao obavezno )

Figure 1: Correlations – Pearson ‘s ( Ljubljana & A ; Belgrade )

* Correlation is important at the 0.05 degree ( 2-tailed ) .

** Correlation is important at the 0.01 degree ( 2-tailed ) .

In figure 2 and 3 are presented correlativities for both metropoliss individually. The findings are, as mentioned, really similar. Correlations for Ljubljana, Slovenia ( figure 2 ) show that the most correlative variables with fright of offense are: V9 – Influence of exploitation ( r = 0,515 ) , V6 – Possible weight of exploitation ( r = 0,482 ) and V12 – Avoidance schemes ( r = 434 ) . All correlativities are positive and important at the 0,01 degree. Self-defence ability is negatively correlated with fright of offense ( r = -0,333 ) . Correlation is important at the 0,01 degree.

Figure 2: Correlations – Pearson ‘s ( Ljubljana )

* Correlation is important at the 0.05 degree ( 2-tailed ) .

** Correlation is important at the 0.01 degree ( 2-tailed ) .

Correlations for Belgrade, Serbia ( figure 3 ) show that the most correlative variables with fright of offense are: V6 – Possible weight of exploitation ( r = 0,504 ) , V9 – Influence of exploitation ( r = 0,475 ) and V12 – Avoidance schemes ( r = 417 ) . All correlativities are positive and important at the 0,01 degree. Self-defence ability is once more negatively correlated with fright of offense ( r = -0,325 ) . Correlation is important at the 0,01 degree.

Figure 3: Correlations – Pearson ‘s ( Belgrade )

* Correlation is important at the 0.05 degree ( 2-tailed ) .

** Correlation is important at the 0.01 degree ( 2-tailed ) .

4. 2. Arrested development analysis

In add-on we used those 13 variables ( societal webs in vicinity, marks of incivility, trust in condemnable justness establishments, malaise because of offense, chance of exploitation in the following three months, possible weight of exploitation, self-defence ability, supportive webs, influence of exploitation, victim in the past 12 months, vicarious exploitation, turning away schemes and media frequence ) as forecaster variables and fright of offense as the dependet variable. We performed arrested development analyses for both metropoliss together and so individually for Ljubljana and Belgrade. In table 4 we can see R2 for all three arrested developments. The largest R2 for Ljubljana shows that all those variables can account for 40,7 % of the fluctuation in fright of offense, in Belgrade for 37,9 % and in both samples for 39,1 % .

Table 4: Model drumhead – R2

City

R2

Both

0,391

Ljubljana

0,407

Beograd

0,379

Table 5 shows the consequences of the arrested development analyses in an overview. The consequences show that the correlativity analyses are more or less confirmed. Variables with most influence on fright of offense are V12 – turning away schemes, V6 – possible weight of exploitation, V9 – influence of exploitation and self-defense abilities ( negative ) . Signs of incivility Looss of importance and besides unease because of offense.

Table 5: Arrested development Analysiss of the 13 independent variables and “ Fear of Crime ” as dependent variable – Ljubljana, Belgrade and both metropoliss

Variables Regression – beta coefficients

Lubljana Belgrade Both

V1- societal webs in vicinity -.091.039 -.020

V2- marks of incivility.085.045.075*

V3- trust in condemnable justness establishments.056.040.033

V4- malaise because of offense.104* .087.099*

V5- chance of victimis. In following 3 months.025.074.037

V6- possible weight of exploitation.150* .227* .201*

V7- self-defense ability -.160* -.164* -.154*

V8- supportive webs -.053 -.006 -.021

V9- influence of exploitation.196* .148* .155*

V10-victim in the past 12 months -.003.007 -.002

V11-vicarious exploitation.016.013.018

V12-avoidance schemes.218* .208* .214*

V14-media frequence.070 -.012.028

In figure 4, 5 and 6 are presented standardized beta coefficients for all three arrested developments.

Figure 4: Arrested development – standardised beta coefficients ( Ljubljana & A ; Belgrade )

* Significant.

Arrested development for both metropoliss together ( calculate 4 ) shows six important forecasters ( independent variables ) :

V12 – turning away schemes ( 0,214 ) ,

V6 – possible weight of exploitation ( 0,201 ) ,

V9 – influence of exploitation ( 0,155 ) ,

V7 – self-defense ability ( -0,154 ) ,

V4 – malaise because of offense ( 0,099 ) ,

V2 – marks of incivility ( 0,075 ) .

All coefficients are positive except for self-defense ability ( which is in conformity with correlativities ) .

Figure 5: Arrested development – standardised beta coefficients ( Ljubljana )

* Significant.

Arrested development for Ljubljana ( figure 5 ) shows six important forecasters ( independent variables ) :

V12 – turning away schemes ( 0,218 ) ,

V9 – influence of exploitation ( 0,196 ) ,

V7 – self-defense ability ( -0,160 ) ,

V6 – possible weight of exploitation ( 0,150 ) ,

V4 – malaise because of offense ( 0,104 ) ,

V1 – societal webs in vicinity ( -0,091 ) .

All coefficients are positive except for self-defense ability and besides societal webs in vicinity.

Figure 6: Arrested development – standardised beta coefficients ( Belgrade )

* Significant.

Arrested development for Belgrade ( figure 6 ) shows merely four important forecasters ( independent variables ) :

V12 – turning away schemes ( 0,208 ) ,

V6 – possible weight of exploitation ( 0,227 ) ,

V9 – influence of exploitation ( 0,148 ) ,

V7 – self-defense ability ( -0,164 ) .

All coefficients are positive except for self-defense ability.

5. Discussion

The consequences show really similar results of the correlativity every bit good the arrested development analyses for both metropoliss. There are no large differences. Fear of offense correlatives significantly with influence of exploitation, with the possible weight of these experient victimixations, with turning away schemes, with feelings of malaise because of offense, with the estimated probabilitiy of a exploitation within the following three months and with marks of incivilities in the metropoliss. There is a negative important correlativity with self-defense ability, that is people who feel more able to defence themselves have less fright of offense. In Belgrade there is evidently a small spot more influence on fright of offense by the media.

The arrested development analyses show fewer important relationships. Harmonizing to the consequences there is an influence on fright of offense or a nexus by turning away schemes, the possible weight of a exploitation and the influence of a exploitation. Peoples who feel a stronger possibility to self defense mechanism have lower fright of offense rates. So the possible exploitation plays a important function in fright of offense harmonizing these consequences. Signs of incivility are important merely for both samples together.

It is really of import to analyze the informations more and to happen out differentiated consequences. The consequences show how of import empirical studies in these states are ( see besides Mesko et Al. 2008 ) . It is really of import to include these states in farther criminological analyses to prove theories, for illustration about fright of offense and other constructs.

Potreba za daljim istraA?ivanjem uz primenu razliA?itih istraA?ivaA?kih pristupa, ukljuA?ivanje kvalitativnog pristupa I drugih tehnika prikupljanja podataka A?ime Bi Se obuhvatili svi aspekti kompleksnog sadrA?aja pojma strah Doctor of Optometry kriminala ( affectional, cognitive and behavioural ) . OgraniA?enje ove studije je u tome A?to je koriA?A‡eno samo samoizveA?tavanje ( merena je samo percepcija ispitanika ) , nema arhivskih indikatora ( objektivnih pokazatelja, prijavljeni incidenti, procenjeni incidenti ) I sve je zasnovano samo na anketnom ispitivanju percepcije. O predikciji je teA?ko zakljuA?ivati ako Se Ne sprovede longitudinalna studija, A?ime Bi Se tek mogla pratiti prediktivnost faktora ( udeo tih faktora u stvaranju straha od kriminala ) .

NISAM TI JA MNOGO PAMETNA KAD SU BROJEVI U PITANJU. A I INAA?E.

x

Hi!
I'm Heather

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out